sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) (sci.geo.meteorology) For the discussion of meteorology and related topics.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2   Report Post  
Old March 3rd 07, 11:14 PM posted to sci.geo.meteorology
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Feb 2007
Posts: 3
Default Question on carbon dioxide and convective cells

On Feb 26, 10:29 pm, (Øyvind Seland) wrote:
In article .com, writes:
Would not extra atmospheric carbon dioxide increase the efficiency of
the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar cells in cooling the earth's surface by
causing the upper troposphere to radiate better?


To be more specific, say the tradewinds blow across the heated ocean.
Evaporation occurs, cooling the ocean. A thunderstorm, front, or
cyclone happens, precipation occurs, the air is heated, and rises. In
the upper troposphere it cools, before descending to complete the
cycle. However it can only cool because it contains carbon dioxide, as
oxygen, nitrogen, if they do not absorb, neither shall they emit
radiation. This presumes that water vapor is insignificant at these
elevated altitudes. If the CO2 is increased by a large fraction, then
the radiation should be similarly enhanced.


Obviously I am out on my own with this analysis. I'm curious why it's
wrong though.


There are no physical law demanding that material has to absorb radiation
in order to emit. It has to emit if it is absorbing.

CO2 transfer energy to N2 and O2 by molecular collisions.

Øyvind Seland


So how do the N2 and O2 lose that energy? By colliding with CO2 [and
clouds according to the second poster] which radiate it. If a layer of
gas is to lose energy by radiation, it needs a radiator, no?

Quote from my uni textbook, "Principles of heat transfer", by Frank
Keith, 3ed, section 5-8 Radiation properties of gases and vapors
" Elementary gases such as O2, N2, H2, and dry air have a symmetric
molecular structure and neither emit nor absorb radiation unless they
are heated to extremely high temperatures at which they become ionized
plasmas and at which electronic energy transformations occur. On the
other hand, gases which have polar molecular forms with an electronic
moment such as a dipole or quadrupole absorb and emit radiation in
limited spectral ranges called bands. In practice, the most important
of these gases are H2O, CO2, CO, SO2, NH3, and the hydrocarbons."

This suggest to me that O2 and N2 cannot emit radiation, so must
collide with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy.
Cheers,
Peter Garrone

  #3   Report Post  
Old March 5th 07, 12:14 PM posted to sci.geo.meteorology
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Default Question on carbon dioxide and convective cells

In article .com, writes:
On Feb 26, 10:29 pm, (=D8yvind Seland) wrote:
In article .com, pgarr=

writes:
Would not extra atmospheric carbon dioxide increase the efficiency of
the Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar cells in cooling the earth's surface by
causing the upper troposphere to radiate better?


To be more specific, say the tradewinds blow across the heated ocean.
Evaporation occurs, cooling the ocean. A thunderstorm, front, or
cyclone happens, precipation occurs, the air is heated, and rises. In
the upper troposphere it cools, before descending to complete the
cycle. However it can only cool because it contains carbon dioxide, as
oxygen, nitrogen, if they do not absorb, neither shall they emit
radiation. This presumes that water vapor is insignificant at these
elevated alti

CO2 transfer energy to N2 and O2 by molecular collisions.

So how do the N2 and O2 lose that energy? By colliding with CO2 [and
clouds according to the second poster] which radiate it. If a layer of
gas is to lose energy by radiation, it needs a radiator, no?


This suggest to me that O2 and N2 cannot emit radiation, so must
collide with CO2, H2O, or a cloud to lose energy.



That sounds more precise that my thoughts on the topic yes.

As the second poster also commented the amount of CO2 increases
further up in the atmosphere, and absorbs more efficient higher up



Øyvind Seland

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carbon Dioxide Levels and Another Update on Sunspots jim uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 6 July 23rd 09 01:35 AM
Carbon Dioxide Levels and Another Update on Sunspots jim sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) 6 July 23rd 09 01:35 AM
Carbon Dioxide Levels and Another Update on Sunspots Stewart Robert Hinsley uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 5 July 22nd 09 10:23 PM
Researchers in northern Wisconsin examine the effects of high levels of carbon dioxide and ozone on forests. Psalm 110 sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) 0 August 23rd 04 07:06 AM
Free Talks Focus on Link Between Carbon Dioxide and Climate Ron sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) 0 August 18th 04 11:23 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 Weather Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Weather"

 

Copyright © 2017